Author
Topic: Existential Writing Genre Crisis (Read 3969 times)

The problem with writing Fantasy is there are certain things that are expected, certain things that are so ingrained into the Genre that they have become fnords. We see them, we expect them, we complain when they are not there, but they have dictated our writing and expectation of writing down to the very core of the genre.

1. The Map

Every fantasy book worth the paper it's printed on has a map in it. Craggy mountains, fluffy forests, rivers running around. The interesting thing is that many of these maps pay no attention to basic tenets of geography (mountain effect rainfall and prevailing winds indicate that there are not going to be dense forests on both sides of those soaring mountains).

2. Billy's Trip to School

You can totally expect the characters to visit almost every location on the map, often in a horrible meandering fashion. If a location isn't visited directly, there will be something from that place, or a story will touch it. We need to go to Mordor, but first we are going to travel to Planet X, time travel back to the 1920s, then steal a boat in Leningrad, then we will walk through the Outer Zone and then catch the red eye flight to Mount Doom.

The expression goes that it's the voyage and not the destination. Except that this is fantasy literature and while there is certainly self discovery along the way, the ultimate objective of the Lord of the Rings is getting rid of a magic ring, not a walking tour of Mordor while exploring their feelings and growing not only as a person, but as a healthy loving couple. At the end of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Repair, the main characters weren't on a mission to destroy a demonic motorcycle hellbent on causing the Zombie Apocalypse.

3. I'm a Farm Boy and That's Okay

The main character is invariably a farmer. Luke Skywalker was a moisture farmer, Rand al'Thor was a shepherd, Richard Cypher was a woodland's guide, etc. Everyone starts as a poor, humble agriculturist. Which while from a historical perspective makes sense (95%+ of the population was engaged in agriculturalism) it doesn't make sense from a modern perspective (2-5% currently involved in agriculturalism). The disconnect from farming today is so profound in the Industrialized First World that things like petting zoos and field trips to farms are novel experiences.

4. The Evil Rich Bad Guy

While it is hard to be a villain and be dirt poor, most of your villains are either going to be filthy stinking rich, nobility, or on a different economic level, aka Sauron. If there is a rich merchant, he will be evil, an untrustworthy side swapping mercenary. The barons and counts are going to be corrupt and dukes and kings are either themselves evil, incompetent, or apathetic. There is an underlying feeling that wealth is like power, corrupting.

re: #2 Ahhahahahahahaha...i was accused of this horrid gm crime many many moons ago by my players.

pre-game

Me: (pulls out map proudly)Players: (groan)Me: why aren't you asking me about all these weird and "cool" geographic locations on this here map I made for the new campaign?!Players: because as soon as you pulled out a map, that you have been no doubt scribbling up for weeks, we knew that we'd end up in and on *every* square inch of this world, before its all said and done anyway.

re: #3: Agreed of course, but I would say that is more of an "old cliche". Last few decades at least I think that most good fantasy literature has gotten away from the whole butcher's apprentice, sword-in-the-stone, prophesied to save-the-world thing. So I don't know, it almost seems to me that calling out the farmer cliche is...cliche?

re: #4: Interesting points! Yeah, dirt-poor evil genius villains just don't resonate do they? However, to play devil's advocate, there is something to be said about vast wealth and how it changes the brain---oh nevermind, i won't go there. Poor bad guys just aren't scary. Rich bad guy is not afraid to "get arrested" to use just one goofy example. He has 68 lawyers at $300/hour each, who will have him out in 1/2 hour, no matter what he did. Poor-ass bad guy is deathly afraid to get arrested on the other hand. Hard to be intimidated by him. Put another way, there are just as many and probably more poor bad guys, but we never hear about them, because they usually don't get far

Ah, how I have come to love that sense of accomplishment and victory that I get when I pull the wool over the eyes of a clever player character. What DM Triumphs have you had?

Some of mine:1. Finally killing an incredibly powerful, lucky, annoying player's character.2. Finally achieving a TPK (Total Party Kill)3. Finally achieving a TPK using only traps4. Finally working out how to make it so that d**n wizard doesn't steal the spotlight all the d**n time.

On a side note, my current villain in the game I'm half hazardly running isn't rich, isn't a noble, and isn't some uberly powerful magi aka Sauron. He is just some crazed cultist that supplanted his mentor/ superiors by sheer luck and has gained power through others. A tragic villain to be sure but one I find enjoyable because he does desperate things which seem to be worse than preplanned and calculating. He doesn't stay and fight to lose, he sends his minions and runs. Possibly causing his current defeat but he is annoyingly reoccurring and the players find him a horrible evil villain that seems to stop at nothing to complete his devious and evil plots and machinaitons. Which if truth be told are more trial and error. Like a group of CSI agents trying to stop a cold, calculating teenager. He has just enough intelligence to be dangerous, and enough flock to his calling to be an ever growing thorn in their side. It seems to work.

#1: I think the maps are necessary insofar as they explain where everyone's going all the time, but I fully agree with the natural terrain problem. Some fantasy worlds want to have every landscape possible, and they jam it all into an area they size of Europe or smaller. We need simplified terrains, smaller areas, instead of these massive, sprawling geographies. Rather than jamming every possible climate into a map, why not have a smaller, detailed area to focus on, with two or three climates that can be explored in detail? You could make a Carolina-sized kingdom and have at least three distinct areas with a diversity of weather conditions.

#2: See above.

#3: My corollary would be that, if they're not a poor farmer, they're a rich noble. It does follow a general medieval/feudal structure, which is where most fantasy worlds are set.

#4: I don't think this is the only villain trope, though it's heavily used. There's also the Barbarian Lord invading with his savage army, the Corrupt Bishop who hides his evil works behind his faith, or - as Mourngrymn pointed out - the Mad Cultist. Ally tropes are just as bad: the Rogue Bandit with a Heart of Gold, the Attractive Female Who Bucks Patriarchy, etc. Is this crisis, or merely the archetypes of the human experience?

I agree with many of the points you raised, but that does not make a book with a map inherently bad, nor does making your villain a rich, evil guy make him unbelievable or uninteresting. Take a look at Brandon Sanderson's Mistborn trilogy for an example. It has a map, but the characters don't go everywhere on it, and the main villain is the Supreme Overlord of the World, with more money and power than anyone has ever gathered in one place before. Hell, he's just known as the Lord Ruler. But this is a FANTASTIC book, even though it violates 1, 4 and to some extent 3 (the humble beginnings part, not the agriculture part). What makes it work is that the author recognized the tropes that fantasy is known for and found ways to play with them.

#1: Agreed. I have read a few authors who refused to use maps (can't remember who off the top of my head) and I also remember reading a forward to some book (also can't remember which) where the author said he only used a map because the publisher forced it on him (because everyone does it...)

#2: Sometimes I am a bit slow. You wouldn't believe how long it took me to figure this one out.

#3: Since most people reading these stories are not rich, it makes sense that this would be an easy way for the author to get empathy for their heroes. I wonder if this has its roots in folk tales, which seem to always revolve around the folk hero beating villains or creatures more powerful than themselves.

#4: I don't really have a problem with the rich/powerful being the villains. Again, I think this helps connect with the reader. We see constant examples of the rich and powerful getting away with the most heinous things IRL, so it's nice to see them "get theirs," even if only in a fictional context. A spin on this that I really like uses someone who appears to be nice when they are weak or poor but turn out to be awful villains when they eventually gain power. In some stories they start out nice and are corrupted and in others they just never had the opportunity to be truly evil until they gained the means (often through villainous acts.) The one thing that does really annoy me are the examples where the educated are always villainous and the good are always simple.

The rest cracked me up. I am soooo tired of prophecies. I feel instant revulsion for any movie, show, or book that resorts to that tired old shtick.

I also get tired of the "every member of race X is..." cliches. I want to see the rebellious Dwarven son who is lazy, pulls pranks on his dour old father, and prefers wine (gasp!) to ale.

The rogue with a heart of gold starts to appeal less once you've met a few real ones.

That said, there's nothing wrong with innovation. Any suggestions for avoiding some of these (potential if not always) traps?

I listen to a writing podcast when I get the chance, and they address this problem several times. Their advice is quite good: when you want to use a trope, try combining it with one or two other tropes to get a better (hopefully more original) idea. For example, look at Anne McCaffery: Dragons + Space Colony = Dragonriders of Pern. Or Brandon Sanderson: Zombies + Prison City = Elantris. Or J.K. Rowling: Wizards + High School Drama = Harry Potter. You can always blend tropes of different genres together and see what you come up with. Hell, take that Farm Boy and see what you can add to it to make it new and interesting again. Maybe a touch of the Reluctant Psycho, perhaps?

Two things, 1. The *premise* of any tale, anecdote, novel, screenplay, or movie regardless of genre and 2. *Good writing* matter far more than which tropes are used, not used, combined, or avoided like the plague me'thinks. That is to say, if the work is written so that it hooks you and keeps your interest, what is the difference what the tropes are?

Here's another example everyone is familiar with...The DaVinci Code. The book was an international best-seller for what, a decade? And started a cottage industry that goes on to this day (check your local book-store's "new fiction" shelf). Most professional reviews refer to it as"amateurish" (other than its great premise/hook), derivative, cliche and trite. You think Dan Brown cares right now? The tropes involved...A brainy, good-hearted professor investigates a mystical mystery from __x___ time period in history. There are chases, there is a love interest, there is a mad-man super-rich villain pulling strings, there fanatical assassins, there are world-changing implications. So basically Indiana Jones but with a "controversial twist".

I'm just saying. Also trying to understand, Scras, are you referring to an existential frustration with whats out there to read, or with the creation process itself? I'm curious.

Ah, how I have come to love that sense of accomplishment and victory that I get when I pull the wool over the eyes of a clever player character. What DM Triumphs have you had?

Some of mine:1. Finally killing an incredibly powerful, lucky, annoying player's character.2. Finally achieving a TPK (Total Party Kill)3. Finally achieving a TPK using only traps4. Finally working out how to make it so that d**n wizard doesn't steal the spotlight all the d**n time.

This reminds me of the difference between an archetype and a stereotype: The first is a blueprint which the author builds from and makes his own, while the second is a simple cutout that is basically indistinguishable from any other of the same type.

Two things, 1. The *premise* of any tale, anecdote, novel, screenplay, or movie regardless of genre and 2. *Good writing* matter far more than which tropes are used, not used, combined, or avoided like the plague me'thinks. That is to say, if the work is written so that it hooks you and keeps your interest, what is the difference what the tropes are?

Here's another example everyone is familiar with...The DaVinci Code. The book was an international best-seller for what, a decade? And started a cottage industry that goes on to this day (check your local book-store's "new fiction" shelf). Most professional reviews refer to it as"amateurish" (other than its great premise/hook), derivative, cliche and trite. You think Dan Brown cares right now? The tropes involved...A brainy, good-hearted professor investigates a mystical mystery from __x___ time period in history. There are chases, there is a love interest, there is a mad-man super-rich villain pulling strings, there fanatical assassins, there are world-changing implications. So basically Indiana Jones but with a "controversial twist".

I'm just saying. Also trying to understand, Scras, are you referring to an existential frustration with whats out there to read, or with the creation process itself? I'm curious.

Or, am i off-topic here already?

I am frustrated because while I have been working, writing, hammering out a story, I looked up and realized that I created something that was basically the standard vanilla fantasy story. Maps, wandering, hot tempered red heads, evil rich villain, ethereal elves and hardy dwarves.

This has become increasingly apparent now that I have expanded my reading horizons (classics and banned lists of books).

I am frustrated because while I have been working, writing, hammering out a story, I looked up and realized that I created something that was basically the standard vanilla fantasy story. Maps, wandering, hot tempered red heads, evil rich villain, ethereal elves and hardy dwarves.

This has become increasingly apparent now that I have expanded my reading horizons (classics and banned lists of books).

Aha, I see. Well, so what? Is it good? How is the story itself? Red heads have NOT been over done! Is it the story you're unhappy with, or the familiarity of it all? Now I know you have a way with words and write very very well. The question is, are *you* happy with what you wrote? If so, it doesn't matter a donkey's tail what cliches/tropes were used.

Ah, how I have come to love that sense of accomplishment and victory that I get when I pull the wool over the eyes of a clever player character. What DM Triumphs have you had?

Some of mine:1. Finally killing an incredibly powerful, lucky, annoying player's character.2. Finally achieving a TPK (Total Party Kill)3. Finally achieving a TPK using only traps4. Finally working out how to make it so that d**n wizard doesn't steal the spotlight all the d**n time.

I would say that you've done an excellent job of figuring out exactly what you dislike about your progress so far, which is no minor thing. You're ahead of the curve on a lot of writers who are blissfully unaware that they're stuck in the same old tropes (hell, most sci-fi puts my teeth on edge for that very reason.)

I would say that you've done an excellent job of figuring out exactly what you dislike about your progress so far, which is no minor thing. You're ahead of the curve on a lot of writers who are blissfully unaware that they're stuck in the same old tropes (hell, most sci-fi puts my teeth on edge for that very reason.)

Well, one of the things that got the ball rolling along this line of thought was an adage: If you think of a book or movie while you are doing your writing, stop, because that book/movie has already been written.

I wasn't actively thinking about a book or movie, but the foundation of what I was writing was grounded in Campbell's The Hero with 1000 Faces, one of the key works cited by Lucas for Star Wars. In hindsight, I have written over 100,000 words about Luke Skywalker if Darth Vader had been killed along with the other Jedi.

I think Joseph Campbell really understood the difference between an archetype and a stereotype (it's quite possible I picked that idea up from him.) Lucas must have known it at some point, although he seems to have forgotten it along the way. Stereotypes and cliches are shortcuts that have no life of their own while an archetype really taps into something.

In my opinion, you could use every single one of the points in your original post in a book and pull it off if by going beyond the cliches and really bringing each element to life. I've read enough of your subs to know that you are quite capable of doing so. (Some day I am going to write a serious sub with both red-skinned demons and dark elves... And y'all will like it )

If you've been expanding your horizons in literature, then let those new ideas inspire what you're working on now. There must be elements outside of the normal tropes that grabbed your attention. Use them.

James Joyce wrote Stephen Hero, which was later rewritten into The Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. 100,000 words is not to much of investment into a first draft. We have talked about refreshing genre fiction by mixing genres alot on this sight (at least I have, and I assume others have cause Dozus mentioned it), and embracing genre should not be something scorned or a reason for dismissal. But I want to ask you three questions just to answer for yourself

1) If somebody looked at your fiction writing as a whole and concluded that you work was unoriginal, that you mostly seemed to be recycling media that you consumed-that your writing is basically an elaborate form of media viewing not media creation, how would you respond, would they be right, what you point to in order to refute or support their arguments?

2) Was there a specific response you wanted to inspire in the readers of your piece and could that response be inspired by a retelling of star wars or whatever?

1. The first draft is always bad. Sometimes the first several books we write will be bad. There's almost no getting around this.

2. If the ideas you are writing about have grabbed you by the throat, sometimes the only way to get them out of your head is to just write the d***ed book and get it over with (had to do this with my nano novel). If that means writing a classic fantasy novel with all the standard tropes, so be it. You can ALWAYS go back and revise it later, adding in unfamiliar elements or putting twists on old ones. If you enjoy writing it, chances are I'll enjoy reading it. To this day, I still like reading classic fantasy novels and there are thousands of others who feel the same way. Write the book you want to read!

3. All (good) authors worry about originality. That's because every story you can think of has already been told. You don't have to come up with a hero archetype not already listed by Joseph Campbell for it to be a good story. Chances are, if you lined all of your favourite books up in a row, you wouldn't find a single one with a hero archetype not already catalogued by Mr. Campbell. Instead of letting that discourage you, use the archetypes to help tighten your plot and focus your protagonist.

4. You're already a d**ned good writer -- one of the best here, in my opinion. Just write, and the rest will take care of itself in revision.

Nothing you write will EVER be truly finished. There will always be room for polishing and revision. There will always be some elements that you belatedly realize weren't as cool or original as you first supposed. Despite this, you inevitably have to settle for calling it "Done enough" and throwing it out of the nest.

Keep in mind that Lovecraft's Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath was sitting in a desk drawer in its current form when his publisher asked him if he had anything ready. Lovecraft told him "no", and the book wasn't published until after his death.

1. The map and 2. Billy’s Trip – Sometimes the map isn’t intended to show the characters’ future travelogue as much as to remind the reader that the story is set in a different world, with cultures and assumptions that may not match their expectations.

I’m reminded of the Paranoia adventure “The Yellow Clearance Black Box Blues”, which advised the GM to take an old road map, carefully mark a route upon it, add cryptic notes, and give it to the players as their map for the adventure. Of course, the actual adventure had nothing to do with the map: Take That, Chekov’s Gun!

3. Farm Boys – Most authors include a clueless rube as a main character so that their exposition makes sense. If Luke already knew his history and that of the Jedi Knights, Obi-Wan would have looked pretty dumb trying to explain the background information needed by the audience. If Harry Potter had known all about Hogwarts, the audience would have been baffled.

4. Evil Rich Guy – As the post said, “It’s hard to be a villain and be dirt poor”. If your villain plans to destroy the world in his spare time when he’s not flipping burgers at the local greasy spoon, he has a hard job ahead of him. On the other hand, if the President of the US wants to destroy the world, he should have the job done in about five minutes (“Enter the code, Mr. President, and the launch will commence.”) Ideally your villain’s abilities lies somewhere between these two extremes.

1) If somebody looked at your fiction writing as a whole and concluded that you work was unoriginal, that you mostly seemed to be recycling media that you consumed-that your writing is basically an elaborate form of media viewing not media creation, how would you respond, would they be right, what you point to in order to refute or support their arguments?

2) Was there a specific response you wanted to inspire in the readers of your piece and could that response be inspired by a retelling of star wars or whatever?

3) Do you enjoy rereading it?

1) You touch on my greatest fear, that someone would look at something I've written and claim it is derivative, a poor copy of something that already exists. I am afraid that someone might pick up what I've written and feel the same contempt I felt when I read Eragon.

2) When I started writing my novel I was not working at that level of writing, seeking to evoke specific feelings or sharing inspiration. I have grown as a writer, but I feel that the novel I have invested a great amount of time in has not grown with me.

Ah, how I have come to love that sense of accomplishment and victory that I get when I pull the wool over the eyes of a clever player character. What DM Triumphs have you had?

Some of mine:1. Finally killing an incredibly powerful, lucky, annoying player's character.2. Finally achieving a TPK (Total Party Kill)3. Finally achieving a TPK using only traps4. Finally working out how to make it so that d**n wizard doesn't steal the spotlight all the d**n time.

Put out the map, but the map is wrong. The orc lands are horribly wrong, marked as blank, vast trackless wastes because orcs are stupid and have no cities. The Dwarven Lands only show the trade cities, and nothing of their real cities and agricultural centers. The human land maps are all messed up because its maps made with technology 500-1200 years old. Find an old map of the New World, some parts are amazingly accurate, while others are horribly horribly wrong. Alternately: the map is a lie.

2. Travel isn't important

There are no scenes on the road, travel is wrapped up in 'They Go There' Alternately, all the events happen in one location, such as a single city or rural area.

3. The Bourgeois Hero

The hero isn't a farmer, the main character is a person of a specific craft or skill (that is not magic). Also not allowed: farmer, rancher, forest guide, blacksmith, mage's assistant.

4. The Holdfast Villain

Rather than being rich, the villain despises wealth. He can be a disgruntled noble who has gone Bonfire of a Vanities and has decided that everyone needs to become a Farmer for whatever reason. Conflict of interest: the main character is a skilled laborer, or skilled person, and the villain has decided that said group of people need to be chicken farmers.

5. The Other Tropes:Beautiful Elves: elves are all really molasses fire victim ugly but magic everyone into thinking they are hawt, they can also be ugly on the inside, or have deplorable practices, such as being paleo-foodies, eating all meat raw, or seeing no issue about eating human.

Stoic Dwarves: are stoic because of constant drug and alcohol abuse, but normally are horrible cowards, or are really just halflings with beards who are good with PR and buying metal goods.

No one uses a bow, or everyone uses one. Both would work.

The scoundrel with a heart of gold is still a liar, thief, and a conman. He won't kill you, but he will still steal your horse, your gold, and leave your girlfriend knocked up. Alternately, he really is a magnificent bastard and he can't believe you fell for that heart of gold ruse. He was just on your side because he owed the baddies a lot of money.

There isn't a dingus, or if there is, the dingus is something that can't be affected, such as the price of a bushel of wheat

The magic exists within a specified paradigm and doesn't exist because magic is a staple of fantasy genre. This is an area where Lord of the Rings needs to be held up because just how many magic spells does the great Wizard Gandalf cast in the book? There is magic, but there is no RPG magic.

The only prophecy is the typical Nostradamus/Edgar Cayce fair and is in no way relevant to the story.

The endgame is settled with negotiation or diplomacy, rather than war (okay, now there is an idea that has piqued my interest)

The hero and the hot single girl decide that once the adventure is over, they can go on to see other people